Go ahead, Ed, mention the names of their opponents.
A lot of the time it is more about voting AGAINST the other candidate.
I agree to a certain point, which is why I voted for Ron Saxton for Governor even though he is pro-abortion, as he would have pushed to ban state funding for abortions and also supported parental consent.
But I do have limits as to how liberal a GOP pol is before I say "Nope" and vote for a write-in, and that is when there is no identifiable difference between he or his opponent.
Such is Pataki, Bloomberg, Giuliani or McCain.
I would consider voting for Romney, maybe, if he is a strong enough candidate that can stop McCain or Giuliani, even though Romney is anti-gun, because I think he can be an effective opponent to Hitliary, but if McCain gets the nod, I will never vote for him, and if that gets us Hitliary, so be it...McCain is so far outside the pale that I see no difference between him or Hitliary.
Ed
Show me please where in the American system you are allowed to cast a vote against a candidate.
The fact is, the only voting that counts is that which is cast FOR a candidate. Any candidate who wins your vote assumes that means you want more of whatever he is offering.
For example, Arnold Schwarzenegger ran on the platform of running full tilt leftward and avoiding any association with conservatives like the plague. Now, he feels that to be his mandate, even though we were told time and again the reason to vote for Arnie was to vote against Angelides. Instead, the message he got was that he and the GOP aren't ENOUGH like Angelides, and so we now need abject apologies for the special election agenda and a slate of new socialistic programs.